[openib-general] Re: Mellanox HCAs: outstanding RDMAs

[Roland Dreier]

    Thomas> This is the difference between "may" and "must". The value
    Thomas> is provided, but I don't see anything in the spec that
    Thomas> makes a requirement on its enforcement. Table 107 says the
    Thomas> consumer can query it, that's about as close as it
    Thomas> comes. There's some discussion about CM exchange too.

This seems like a very strained interpretation of the spec.  For
example, there's no explicit language in the IB spec that requires an
HCA to use the destination LID passed via a modify QP operation, but I
don't think anyone would seriously argue that an implementation that
sent messages to some other random destination was compliant.

In the same way, if I pass a limit for the number of outstanding
RDMA/atomic operations in to a modify QP operation, I would expect the
HCA to use that limit.

 - R.